Woman sentenced for bilking banks
MADISON — A California woman convicted of scamming Janesville area banks out of about $30,000 was sentenced in federal court Thursday to three years probation and was ordered to repay the banks.
During her plea hearing last fall, Carmella Childs, 22, Sacramento, Calif., told District Judge Barbara Crabb that in June 2007 she asked for an $8,000 cash advance on a Visa credit card from Blackhawk Community Credit Union, 2704 E. Milwaukee Ave.
When the request was declined, Childs had the teller call a phone number, and the person who answered posed as a credit card company representative and instructed the teller how to override the system and to try the card again. The second time the teller swiped the card through the cash advance machine the transaction went through and Childs said she received the money.
Childs was working with Lakeisha Pearson, also of Sacramento, who with Childs was indicted for using the same scheme when they traveled to M&I banks in Janesville and Salem and Mid America and Johnson banks in Janesville.
Pearson, who is being prosecuted in federal court in Sacramento, is accused of defrauding $12,000 from Johnson Bank, 1 S. Main St., Janesville, and $9,500 from Mid America Bank, 2317 Milton Ave., Janesville.
The scheme didn't work at the M&I Bank in Salem, where Pearson was refused an $8,500 cash advance, and it didn't work at the M&I Bank on Main Street in Janesville, where Child's request for a $6,000 cash advance was declined.
In court Thursday, Crabb asked Childs why she got involved in the scheme. Childs replied that she was in "financial straits," at the time.
"I don't know. I wasn't thinking straight. When someone suggested it, I didn't think it through," she said.
Crabb noted that Childs has stayed employed and law abiding while on bail, has finished a cosmetology degree and has no prior convictions.
Crabb called the scheme "short-lived and unsophisticated," and although Childs faced six to 12 months in prison under advisory sentencing guidelines, Crabb imposed three years probation with one month of home confinement and ordered Childs to make restitution of $23,000 to the M&I Bank, Johnson Bank and Blackhawk Community Credit Union.
Jan 12, 2009 at 12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin1, I think some Enron, Worldcom, and subprime loan investors may disagree with you.
Jan 10, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Non-violent criminals should never never ever be sent to prison. As a condition of probation they should have to get a job and start paying back what they stole and in the process they will be paying taxes.
Jan 10, 2009 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
I would have to think if she has to repay the banks $23,000 she scammed them for $6,500.
Jan 10, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Carmella Childs= poster child for "integrity".
Let's pray for her.
Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Since when is 29,500 not a whole number? I comprehend not only how to round and more importantly when not to support my facts so I don't mislead or exaggerate. It was a sad attempt to bring attention to article. To me you look uneducated if your totals don't match your opening statement when they're the basis of the story.
I think my opening line said it best and I'll say it again GOOD GOD MATH IS HARD.
Do you not even have an opinion on rest of what was written or do you just defend the gazette for sake of argument?
Jan 10, 2009 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hannah if your pay check was rounded to nearest !00th dollar and it wasn't in favor you would be upset. GET IT NOW? Your math skills are as proficient as in the article.
Jan 9, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good god math is hard, add up the numbers $29,500 in the print yet the headline reads $30,000 I round too but not to the nearest $500!
Little wonder the country is in shambles. When you steal $29,500 and only have to pay back $23,000 I would say she got away with stealing quite well.
We the tax payers can pitch in the rest with added overhead to the bank right? Our legal system is a JOKE!
Jan 9, 2009 at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
The leniency is due to the cooperation by the defendant. Restitution is complex but it's basically a debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and the federal court will have jurisdiction to seize assets for the next 20 years. It is common in fraud cases when there is an ability to repay, as in theory it makes the victim whole, whereas if the defendant is imprisoned they cannot repay anything.
Jan 9, 2009 at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Johnson bank got screwed !!!!!!!! haha !
Jan 9, 2009 at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
This was serious offense! I can't believe that's all she got! This is why crime is rampant everywhere, no consequences for the actions. She stole money from you who bank at these places. I don't think that is ok and I think she needed to spend some time in jail to think about what she did. Yo do the crime you should pay!
Jan 9, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
I can't see why gender would affect the sentence. Also, I agree with thekid3477's reasoning on this one.
Jan 9, 2009 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
i think it sounds fair. no priors. send her to jail and she'll probably learn how to become a real criminal. plus the banks get paid back a lot faster if shes not in jail
Jan 9, 2009 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sounds rather lenient. Would a man have received probation and a month of home confinement for the same offenses?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.